Gay marriages....now what about siblings parents or animals?

[RainBear]

Slovenya,

As animals tend to have a better sense of smell and/or better eyesight than humans do, I assume that they can also distinguish between male and female. Therefore, this line of reasoning of yours does not meet the need of your argument. It is not a prima facie argument.

Slovenya, what part of nature? Nature has demonstrated a great degree of adaptability in sexual matters and homosexual acts have been documented in various species.

Seriously, you cannot argue against homosexuality by saying it is unnatural when it happens in nature and you cannot argue against homosexuality by considering it to be animalistic when you have already argued that it does not happen in nature. The two arguments cancel each other out!

no they dont because one is the way nature intends things, and another is the guidance and knowledge people have of what is right and wrong. We know killing is bad for so and so reason, we know stealing is bad for so and so reason. Yes animals do have homosexual sex but they cant reason that nature distinguished male from female.

[Slovenya]

ok Rajan Bhonsle, MD said "As a medical expert, I would like to enlighten the readers about some medical facts related to anal sex. Medical science regards anal sex as ‘high-risk behaviour’. Physiologically, the anus is not designed for penetration by any hard object."

[Agymnum]

ok Rajan Bhonsle, MD said "As a medical expert, I would like to enlighten the readers about some medical facts related to anal sex. Medical science regards anal sex as ‘high-risk behaviour’. Physiologically, the anus is not designed for penetration by any hard object."

No shit.

Same-sex couples do it.

Heterosexual couples do it, too.

If your problem is with anal sex, ban anal sex, not homosexuality.*

*I'm against regulation in the bedroom

[Slovenya]

Slovenya,

As animals tend to have a better sense of smell and/or better eyesight than humans do, I assume that they can also distinguish between male and female.

they also kill one another, I dont think they feel this is bad either

[RainBear]

Can you cite his peer reviewed article from a professional journal where this assertion was made? Is it back by scientific fact or personal opinion. There is a difference between the two, you know.

ok Rajan Bhonsle, MD said "As a medical expert, I would like to enlighten the readers about some medical facts related to anal sex. Medical science regards anal sex as ‘high-risk behaviour’. Physiologically, the anus is not designed for penetration by any hard object."

[Slovenya]

No shit.

Same-sex couples do it.

Heterosexual couples do it, too.

If your problem is with anal sex, ban anal sex, not homosexuality.*

*I'm against regulation in the bedroom

just a reason to support why homosexuality is wrong, and if heterosexuals do it, its wrong. I can also find harms for lesbian sex too. But I think you get the point...no need to use profanity.

[RainBear]

Indeed, not all same-sex couples engage in anal sex. You seem to be obsessed about this one aspect.

ok Rajan Bhonsle, MD said "As a medical expert, I would like to enlighten the readers about some medical facts related to anal sex. Medical science regards anal sex as ‘high-risk behaviour’. Physiologically, the anus is not designed for penetration by any hard object."

[RainBear]

Now, what dangers are inherent in lesbianism? I am truly curious.

just a reason to support why homosexuality is wrong, and if heterosexuals do it, its wrong. I can also find harms for lesbian sex too. But I think you get the point...no need to use profanity.

[Agymnum]

No shit.

Same-sex couples do it.

Heterosexual couples do it, too.

If your problem is with anal sex, ban anal sex, not homosexuality.*

*I'm against regulation in the bedroom

just a reason to support why homosexuality is wrong, and if heterosexuals do it, its wrong. I can also find harms for lesbian sex too. But I think you get the point...no need to use profanity.

Just stating the obvious logic.

Homosexuality is not inherently wrong because one part of it is somehow wrong for you.

If homosexuality is wrong because anal sex is wrong, surely...

Islam is wrong because suicide bombers are wrong

Christianity is wrong because the Crusades were wrong

Democracy is wrong because tyranny by majority is wrong

And so forth.

Anal sex isn't even an integral part of homosexuality, so how is anal sex a justification that homosexuality is wrong. Not logical.

[RainBear]

I wish that there were a LIKE button, as in Facebook!

Just stating the obvious logic.

Homosexuality is not inherently wrong because one part of it is somehow wrong for you.

If homosexuality is wrong because anal sex is wrong, surely...

Islam is wrong because suicide bombers are wrong

Christianity is wrong because the Crusades were wrong

Democracy is wrong because tyranny by majority is wrong

And so forth.

Anal sex isn't even an integral part of homosexuality, so how is anal sex a justification that homosexuality is wrong. Not logical.

[Slovenya]

Now, what dangers are inherent in lesbianism? I am truly curious.

a muslim medical doctor once made a presentation I saw online but I dont remember his name, sorry.

[Intangelon]

I believe knowing consenting adults can do what they please.

But the parties need to have the capacity to consent.

I love Harlequin, our Lab, but she lacks a sufficient forebrain to consent to anything but food, frisbees, naps and chipmunk hunting.

Anything other than this ^ is just plain grandstanding and buffoonery.

[RainBear]

Intagelon, do you read Elfquest? Your avatar reminds me of that series.

By the way, I agree with what you posted here.

I believe knowing consenting adults can do what they please.

But the parties need to have the capacity to consent.

I love Harlequin, our Lab, but she lacks a sufficient forebrain to consent to anything but food, frisbees, naps and chipmunk hunting.

Anything other than this ^ is just plain grandstanding and buffoonery.

[RainBear]

I might consider your source to be equally biased.

a muslim medical doctor once made a presentation I saw online but I dont remember his name, sorry.

[Agymnum]

Now, what dangers are inherent in lesbianism? I am truly curious.

a muslim medical doctor once made a presentation I saw online but I dont remember his name, sorry.

If it's important that he's Muslim, I think his opinions might be biased by something other than medicine.

[Grenartia]

I can respect that opinion, actually, save for the fact that "marriage" rolls off the tongue better than "civil union".

Someone who is not an off-the-charts-extremist finds my opinion respectable‽

I find it respectable only in that it is fair towards all. So long as the rights granted to marriage today are also guaranteed with the civil unions.

You can't make law from religious standpoints. It discriminates against those who are not Christian.

Islam has its Sharia Law (also, you make the assumption I am multicultural, when in fact I am not), and forces non-Muslims to adhere to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law#Application_by_country

You shouldn't make laws based off of purely religious standpoints. At least not if you value freedom, or believe in following the Golden Rule.

Murder is illegal because it's immoral. Should we legalize murder because fuck morality?

We should abolish all laws.

State of Nature is a Bad Thing^TM, dude.

Doesn't matter.

Of course not; in this debauched modern age, when reason is championed over faith, why would it? This is one of the reasons I fear for the survival of humanity.

"You can do very little with faith, but you can do nothing without it"-Samuel Butler.

Reason never killed innocent people. This coming from a person who follows faith AND reason.

Thank you OP for bringing this up! you know what's next? 1. Pedophilia, that's right! Just how homosexuality was seen as a mental disorder in the past, pedophelia is taking it's place... 2. now you have these freaks saying it should also be considered a sexual orientation.

3. GOD says man + woman! 4. Look at what happen with Sodom & Gomorrah!

5. And Lut, when he said to his people, "Do you commit an obscenity not perpetrated before you by anyone in all the worlds? You come with lust to men instead of women. You are indeed a depraved people." (Qur'an, 7:80-81)

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/9131853/reload=0;jsessionid=pwlRpgM21FfNTOC9lscT.16

1. Pedophilic acts deprive people of their reasonable rights without their informed consent. Homosexual acts do not. This should be plainly obvious.

2. Who are "these freaks" you speak of?

3. If God said 2+2=4, would you be arguing that any number plus any other number MUST equal 4?

4. What does two cities that were destroyed for inhospitality and treating the poor like shit, along with the citizens of one attempting to rape two angels have to do with a consensual act of love between two people?

5. That's not how the original reads. I'm sure Menassa, a Jewish scholar (I'd guess he of all people should know how the original verse was worded), can set you straight. And it is clear, that unless one wants to argue that the angels WANTED to have sex with the men of Sodom, that what happened was attempted rape, and not a consensual act.

So... that whole "Mohammed had many wives, and one of them was 9" was a lie?

If it's the Same Lot... it's the same Sodom.

Ezekiel 16:49.

Well to me and my parents and my family, we only adhere to the Qur'an. So to answer the question of the 9 year old wife, if it's not mentioned in the Qur'an, we don't believe it. Also yes, these cities were in Jordan, near Palestine, and there is evidence in that area of a great volcanic eruption.

But surely, since your God is the same as our God, you must at least read the Hebrew texts for context?

Unless my understanding of Islam is mistaken, the Jewish prophets are also prophets in Islam, so shouldn't Ezekiel's words have the same weight as a prophet?

Slovenya,

Just a few points here.

First, homosexuality does not entail abusing a position of trust. In plain English, it entails two CONSENTING adults. Pedophilia involves one adult (with free will) and one child (who, by legal definition) who cannot make the adult decision to engage in a sexual or romantic relationship with an adult.

1. Well so are you saying all adults makes sound decisions? 2. Pedophile promoters can argue similar points that early homosexual promoters used.

Second, not everyone follows the Qur'an. That has been evidenced here by the posts from people who follow the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible.

Yea not everyone follows the Qur'an, but it's a good guidance we have that places a fine line on morality of man and animals

What happened in Sodom and Gomorrah can be explained without resorting to homophobia. Look at Ezekiel 16: 49, for example, in the Hebrew Bible. It demonstrates that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were greed, lack of hospitality, et cetera. For some peculiar reason, Ezekiel failed to mention homosexuality.

Finally, one's religious beliefs should not be confused with common law or used as justification for denying full equality.

3. you should not say homophobia, because Islam is not Homophobic, it just simply says this is wrong. 4. If you do this and you are muslim, christian, or jewish, than you know you are commiting an act against God. If you don't know any better than God is forgiving and mercifult

1. Not at all. But what RainBear IS saying, is that homosexuality is totally different from pedophilia.

2. Prove it.

3. Then, by your own admission, it IS homophobic.

4. As a Christian, I can safely say that I've studied my religion's holy texts well enough to say that my religion does not actually consider homosexuality to be a sin, because God doesn't consider it to be a sin.

Not to mention, that the theology of any loving, forgiving, merciful, rational God cannot be logically reconciled with the theology of a God that considers homosexuality to be a sin. Especially when said God creates people with innate homosexual attractions (as must be the case, since science has debunked the 'homosexuality is a choice' spiel. And when science and one's opinions on what God's opinions are conflict, one must go with science, as science is objective, and less likely to be wrong).

Same-sex marriage would simply confer upon the same-sex couple the same legal rights and responsibilities that a heterosexual couple legally enjoys now. It does not require your mosque or someone's church to officiate at such weddings. It does not require you to marry someone of the same gender. It simply confers the same rights (over 1,000 of them under federal law) and the same responsibilities as experienced in a heterosexual marriage. How is that bad or "wrong"?

If you believe in what the bible or Quran say then you will see its bad. You are right in the sense that it doesn't correspond to people who dont believe in these books, but like I said, i used it as a platform for not crossing the lines of what humans should do. So even if they do marry they can't make children, and homosexuality actually brings more diseases

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/pat-robertson-gay-marriage-only-brings-disease-and-suffering-video/politics/2012/05/15/39622

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=Is01B1

Pat Robertson and the Family Research Council (FRC is actually a hate group) are not legitimate sources. Get some peer-reviewed, non-biased, scientific sources.

Also, since when was reproduction the end all-be all of life, especially now that we have over 7 billion people on this planet? What about infertile heterosexual married couples, or those that choose not to have kids?

Slovenya, then you support Lesbianism as it does not bring about as many diseases as heterosexuality does?

Also, as for procreation, ... There are couples who are incapable of bearing children or who do not wish to bear children. Should their marriages by voided because of the lack of children?

Lesbianism is part of homosexuality, no I dont agree with it either. and just because a heterosexual couple are married and dont want kids they still have the sexual parts to safely have intercourse, the way nature intended it.

Argument from nature is a logical fallacy.

Actually, so do homosexuals. They can also safely have sex, as long as they follow procedures such as making sure they do not have and STDs and using a condom. Further nature cannot have intent.

anal sex is very dangerous and does harm even if there are no stds.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=Is01B1

Again, FRC is not a legitimate source.

ok Rajan Bhonsle, MD said "As a medical expert, I would like to enlighten the readers about some medical facts related to anal sex. Medical science regards anal sex as ‘high-risk behaviour’. Physiologically, the anus is not designed for penetration by any hard object."

And yet, medical science gives us prostate exams. I'd think that a hand does more damage than an erect penis.

[RainBear]

LOL!

I like your comment about the prostate exam being more dangerous than an erect penis.

[Slovenya]

Islam is wrong because suicide bombers are wrong

Again, this is not something the Qur'an approves (suicide for one is a sin). They might find a reason to believe this is righteous, but I don't condone it. As far as the Muslim Doctor, I can see how you might think it's biased, so I wont bother looking for it. But if you're curious his name is Zakir Naik

[Menassa]

Islam is wrong because suicide bombers are wrong

Again, this is not something the Qur'an approves (suicide for one is a sin). They might find a reason to believe this is righteous, but I don't condone it. As far as the Muslim Doctor, I can see how you might think it's biased, so I wont bother looking for it. But if you're curious his name is Zakir Naik

His point












Your head

[Grenartia]

LOL!

I like your comment about the prostate exam being more dangerous than an erect penis.

Thanks.

[Novairia]

People marrying animals won't be allowed because animals DO NOT HAVE LEGAL RIGHTS.

And you think that will stop it?
The people that want it to happen, will see the LGBT(add more letters as we go) movement as the justification to push for their right to marry animals, and if they have too, the rights for those animals to enable their marriage / equal rights movement to proceed.

[Slovenya]

People marrying animals won't be allowed because animals DO NOT HAVE LEGAL RIGHTS.

And you think that will stop it?
The people that want it to happen, will see the LGBT(add more letters as we go) movement as the justification to push for their right to marry animals, and if they have too, the rights for those animals to enable their marriage / equal rights movement to proceed.

and I agree with you

[The Rich Port]

People marrying animals won't be allowed because animals DO NOT HAVE LEGAL RIGHTS.

And you think that will stop it?
The people that want it to happen, will see the LGBT(add more letters as we go) movement as the justification to push for their right to marry animals, and if they have too, the rights for those animals to enable their marriage / equal rights movement to proceed.

Because NAMBLA has the same amount of support as the LGBT movement, amirite?

[Agymnum]

People marrying animals won't be allowed because animals DO NOT HAVE LEGAL RIGHTS.

And you think that will stop it?
The people that want it to happen, will see the LGBT(add more letters as we go) movement as the justification to push for their right to marry animals, and if they have too, the rights for those animals to enable their marriage / equal rights movement to proceed.

Logical fallacy: Slippery Slope

LGBT involves expansion of marriage rights.

People marrying animals involves expansion of marriage rights.

Thus, LGBT legalized marriage will lead to people marrying animals.

Problem with this fallacy:

LGBT couples eligible for marriage equality are made up of consenting adults. Animals are unable to consent seeing as they lack sapience and thus cannot legally consent to anything. Animal marriage is therefore not equal to LGBT marriage.

[RainBear]

Again, animals and children are both legally incapable of making rational decisions that are legally binding. As such, it would be illegal for either a sexual relationship or a contractual agreement between an adult and an animal or a child. This is simply a red herring argument that serves no rational use.

[quote="Novairia";p="14092819The people that want it to happen, will see the LGBT(add more letters as we go) movement as the justification to push for their right to marry animals, and if they have too, the rights for those animals to enable their marriage / equal rights movement to proceed.[/quote]